Jane Fonda: The real dope

OK, I have seen the "Hanoi Jane" picture of her in the NVA helmet sitting in the AA gun, and I believe the stories that she gave food and supplies to North Vietnamese people during the war, but I am not sure I am buying the story about the POW who handed here a piece of paper with names or serial numbers on it, which she then supposedly turned in to the NV authorities, thus bringing punishment down upon the POW's. Snopes and other de-bunkers say this is not true, and some people claim that Snopes is FOS, including one person on Facebook who claimed he talked to one of those POW's who didn't want to go public and died in 1976.

I'm not here to argue whether Jane Fonda is a traitor or should be prosecuted or kicked out of the country or shot, or whether we should have gotten involved in the Vietnamese conflict or gotten out sooner or bombed the whole country, paved it over, put parking strips on it and been home for Christmas (which we would now call "The Holiday Season"). I just want to know how much of what is said about her trip to North Vietnam is true and how much is hysterical BS designed to make her and the whole anti-war movement look bad.

I figure if anyone has got the drive, resources, thoroughness, and inclination to get to the bottom of this has got to be somewhere here on Bullshdo.net...

Forget about plastic surgery and aerobics – Jane Fonda says her real fountain of youth is the occasional puff of marijuana!

The 73 year-old Hollywood legend reportedly was spotted smoking a joint at a post-Oscar party on Feb. 27 – and pals say the counterculture icon credits the illegal herb for helping her grow old gracefully and stay young at heart.

“Jane’s always been very frank about being a fan of marijuana,” a close pal told The Enquirer. “She thinks pot is way healthier than alcohol.

“Pot helps Jane relax.”

Three times married Jane and her music-producer fiance, 68 year-old Richard Perry, stepped out together at the ultra exclusive “Vanity Fair” Oscar party.

According to reports, the smell of wacky weed wafted around Jane, Richard and Jane’s brother, “Easy Rider” star Peter Fonda.

Jane, who was seated next to “Glee” star Jane Lynch – covered her mouth while puffing away on what looked like pot, the source said.

“Jane didn’t care who saw her,” continued the insider. “She thinks marijuana should be legalized.”

for those unfamiliar with the story, here is the Snopes.com page about it. It includes one of the original versions of the story and a new, Obama-era variant that talks about how the president wants to honor Jane Fonda. There is also a version going around these days that quotes Barbara Walters saying she does not like her. It of course follows with Snopes.com's take on the whole issue, reporting how certain named vets in the original story deny that it every happened. These things are way too long to post here, so just click on the link...http://www.snopes.com/military/fonda.asp

The FB post that claims that a vet told him it was true has disappeared off that fellow's Timeline, and I forgot the name that was quoted.

Jane Fonda is the living embodiment of 'no mater how radical you think you are at 20, you'll end up just like your parents'

Where's your little red book now bitch!

To me it seems a little like the anti-war movement of the 60's-'70's is like the Communist Party in the 1930's. It was fashionable to be a part of it, and considering what was going on, seemed to make a lot of sense. Now things have swung around, and it's embarrassing at the least, and socially and professionally poisonous, at worst, to admit you were a part of it.

The Depression was bad, lots of people were suffering at what seemed to be the results of unchecked Capitalism. Communism and Socialism promised a way for those who worked to get fairly compensated for the value of their work. Who wouldn't want that?

When the Soviet Union became the mortal enemy of the United States, being a Communist became a bad thing, and thus began the witch-hunts and the blacklists and lives and careers were destroyed. To have said something as logical as "Share and share alike" was grounds for persecution.

The Vietnam war was bad. Lots of people were getting killed. Lots of those people were civilians, getting killed by Americans. Lots of Americans were getting killed. There seemed to be no end in sight, and the objectives were unclear. To say "stop killing people and bring our boys home" really did not seem like a bad thing. Add to that things like Watergate, race riots, and a general sense of disillusionment with authority, the government, and the American Dream, and it seemed like the responsible thing to do was to Fight Against the Power.

Then the war ended, "Star Wars" came out (that's a whole 'nother essay), Iran took hostages, Reagan was elected, we went to war in the Middle East, 9/11 occurred, we went to war again, and now anyone who had Questioned Authority between 1966 and 1975 was a traitor. And if your candidate looked like he might actually lose an election, all you had to do was fake a photograph of your opponent with Jane Fonda and send out a mass e-mail with some spurrious "facts" and you would be assured of a few more votes.

We have the right of free speech in the country, and free association, and Paul Robeson was right when he defended his affiliation with the Communist party on the grounds of the First Amendment, not the Fifth. The trouble is that social and political forces can make your choices unpopular if the Revolution fails, and history is won by the writers (not written by the winners).

To me it seems a little like the anti-war movement of the 60's-'70's is like the Communist Party in the 1930's. It was fashionable to be a part of it, and considering what was going on, seemed to make a lot of sense. Now things have swung around, and it's embarrassing at the least, and socially and professionally poisonous, at worst, to admit you were a part of it.

The Depression was bad, lots of people were suffering at what seemed to be the results of unchecked Capitalism. Communism and Socialism promised a way for those who worked to get fairly compensated for the value of their work. Who wouldn't want that?

When the Soviet Union became the mortal enemy of the United States, being a Communist became a bad thing, and thus began the witch-hunts and the blacklists and lives and careers were destroyed. To have said something as logical as "Share and share alike" was grounds for persecution.

The Vietnam war was bad. Lots of people were getting killed. Lots of those people were civilians, getting killed by Americans. Lots of Americans were getting killed. There seemed to be no end in sight, and the objectives were unclear. To say "stop killing people and bring our boys home" really did not seem like a bad thing. Add to that things like Watergate, race riots, and a general sense of disillusionment with authority, the government, and the American Dream, and it seemed like the responsible thing to do was to Fight Against the Power.

Then the war ended, "Star Wars" came out (that's a whole 'nother essay), Iran took hostages, Reagan was elected, we went to war in the Middle East, 9/11 occurred, we went to war again, and now anyone who had Questioned Authority between 1966 and 1975 was a traitor. And if your candidate looked like he might actually lose an election, all you had to do was fake a photograph of your opponent with Jane Fonda and send out a mass e-mail with some spurrious "facts" and you would be assured of a few more votes.

We have the right of free speech in the country, and free association, and Paul Robeson was right when he defended his affiliation with the Communist party on the grounds of the First Amendment, not the Fifth. The trouble is that social and political forces can make your choices unpopular if the Revolution fails, and history is won by the writers (not written by the winners).

While true that the political climate changes, having been through all of those years I can remember Nixon as a popular war leader. We hated him, but he was elected by a giant margin. So things do change, and anti-war activists are viewed in various ways by the media and mainstream culture, but to activists is mostly plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose. After all, the struggle for human rights and against slavery and war has been going on for hundreds of years. Activists often focus on different problems, but largely see other progressives as part of the same movement. War, human rights, child labor, slavery, fair trade, environment; to activists the opponents of freedom and rights are engaged with them in struggle - the popularity of the activists in popular culture is a factor, not a decider. More people getting on the boat so to speak is a good thing, but fashions come and go, the struggle will still be there.

A lot of the anti-war movement of the Vietnam era was not looney girls climbing onto anti-aircraft guns. Many became involved with protesting the Reagan era wars in Central America and many were aware of the crimes committed by Ollie, Poindexter and Co. The slaughter of peasants, the importing of cocaine and selling of guns to Iran was a scandal and Reagan's position in the Republican Heaven is largely a creation of the propagandists years later. He wasn't all that popular when he was in power and one should remember that he was responsible for the resurgence and popularity of Punk music - he gave youth someone to hate with passion and was referred to as President Kill.

The currents wars have been unprecedented in their isolation from the mainstream. Never have so few done so much. But despite the lies and propaganda, truth does come out and many, if not most, Americans now know that it was all bullshit. The war mongers have switched to saying that, nevertheless, it was good to get rid of Saddam. A rather weak position.

"Preparing mentally, the most important thing is, if you aren't doing it for the love of it, then don't do it." - Benny Urquidez